Why did Harvard Law School dean libel her own student Stephanie Grace over Grace's private email expressing agnosticism over whether there might be some genetic basis for the pervasive differences in IQ observed between the races?
I explained in a 2005 American Conservative article during the Larry Summers brouhaha, when Larry immediately handed out $50 million to the feminist who wound up replacing him as reparations for speaking honestly and intelligently about sex differences in high end intelligence:
Summers' job is partly to enhance, but mostly to protect, one of the world's most valuable brand names. "Harvard" stands for "intelligence," extreme far right edge of the IQ Bell Curve smarts. America is increasingly stratified by IQ, and the resulting class war that the clever are waging upon the clueless means that having Harvard's endorsement of your brainpower is ever more desirable. Thus, applications and SAT scores have skyrocketed over the last half century.
Yet, Harvard's IQ elitism sharply contradicts its professed egalitarianism. The typical Harvard professor or student considers himself superior to ordinary folks for two conflicting reasons: first, he constantly proclaims his belief in human equality, but they don't; and second, he has a high IQ, but they don't.
Further, he believes his brains weren't the luck of his genes. No, he earned them. Which in turn means he feels that dumb people deserve to be dumb.
Ivy League presidents aren't much worried that the left half of the Bell Curve will get themselves well enough organized to challenge the hegemony of the IQ overclass. No, what they fear is opposition to their use of IQ sorting mechanisms, such as the politically incorrect but crucial SAT, from those identity politics pressure groups who perform below average in a pure meritocracy, such as women, blacks, and Hispanics. But, they each boast enough high IQ activists, like Nancy Hopkins, to make trouble for prestige universities.
So, Harvard, like virtually all famous universities, buys off females and minorities with "a commitment to diversity" -- in other words, quotas. By boosting less competent women, blacks and Hispanics at the expense of the more marginal men, whites, and Asians, Harvard preserves most of its freedom to continue to discriminate ruthlessly on IQ.
What is obviously in the best interest of Harvard, and of the IQ aristocracy in general, is for everybody just to shut up about group differences in intelligence. Stifling arguments allows the IQ upper class to quietly push its interests at the expense of everyone else. So, Summers bought peace fast.
Posts
58 comments:
Harvard has to walk a fine line. It needs to let in a certain number of "diversity" applicants to keep the hoi polloi in line, but not so many as to devalue the Harvard brand. I wonder what the tipping point is.
It's funny that Harvard and other Ivy Leaguers think they're better on the sole account of their higher intelligence.
Yet how dare someone make mention it?!!?
[Of course, I agree they're way smarter and more capable of economic productivity and shirking social pathologies (other than liberalism). But that surely doesn't mean anyone without an Ivy degree is a failure or morally worthless.]
Do people get sued for libel in America? Never heard of it.
Man, this chick f*cked up in the wrong country; first, in Canadian libel cases there is a reverse onus on the accused to prove what he said wasn't libelous. Unless you're a conservative or a white male, same thing really, in which case you're guilty.
Second, hos trump bros by a longshot up here, she'd be having the whole Harvard Angry Black Person Association thrown in jail if they so much as looked at her sideways and the largely female/gay media would be all you go girl.
Oh, where the f*ck are the scientists on this one? If we got science on our side, and we do, then where are the scientists loudly and vehemently protesting the Lamarckist bullshit that is imposed on us? One manifesto-ish document signed by 50 unknown (to the public) academics six years ago or whatever is an insufficiently robust response. We normal people shouldn't have to be putting our asses on the line, that's a scientist's job.
An evil related idea for a billionaire:
"High IQ University": a university founded on the principle that those with the highest IQ should be our leaders. There is no entrance exam, merely an Mensa-quality, non-verbal, non-word-recognition, standard 2-D items-in-series-pattern-recognition-and-prediction-IQ test. Only those with IQ's over 170 are admitted.
The media would decry it. Once they seen the overwhelmingly white/asian male student body, they'd really decry it. Corporations however, would salivate, because they'd immediately know what they were getting. After a few years, when hiring straight-after-graduation from this place became a Fortune 500 ritual, the best and brightest would be attempting to secure positions here instead of Harvard and Yale, which would diminish the Harvard/Yale/Ivy axis and their undue influence nationally.
It'll never happen, but its fun to speculate.
Why did Harvard Law School dean libel her own student Stephanie Grace over Grace's private email expressing agnosticism over whether there might be some genetic basis for the pervasive differences in IQ observed between the races?
Again, that dean is [along with her father and her sister] at the heart of the cabal which worked very quietly [and very intimately] for several decades to install Barack Hussein Obama & Michelle LaVaughn Robinson at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
The story was broken by Steve Diamond; there is more detail in this overview.
I feel so sorry for her.
There is obviously an instinct to capitulate, but it never works. What would work?
The ideal is how Gatesgate was handled. Officer Crowley was told not to comment by his superiors while they made sure to stand by him and speak on his behalf. They were magnificent.
If you are a private citizen, or not backed by your superiors in whatever group your in, the best you can probably hope for is pariah/hero status like Joe the Plumber or even the Duke Lacrosse players.
But always resist the instinct to apologize.
That this whole IQ email/Harvard shit hits at the same time we now have South American movie stars (in addition to our own homegrown idiot "stars") telling us we are a baaaad country because that ole evil Arizona has passed a law actually requiring its law enforcement officers to, well, you know, actually enforce the law is about the most maddening thing since Obama last claimed his was the most transparent Presidency of all time.
Nothing in the Arizona law, nothing in the woman's email is upsetting; those who say otherwise are pretending; those who stay silent are allowing pretense to win.
Only those with IQ's over 170 are admitted.
My gut feeling is that IQ >= 170 is just exceedingly rare; also, the tests probably tend to become more and more meaningless as you get out towards IQ 150 or IQ 160 [at that point, you are dealing with things like God-given "talent", and how to measure it, not to mention pathological/debilitating schizophrenia/Aspergers kinds of problems; also, you face the whole question of whether people with IQs of 120/130/140 can even design tests to stump their betters in the first place].
"My gut feeling is that IQ >= 170 is just exceedingly rare; also, the tests probably tend to become more and more meaningless as you get out towards IQ 150 or IQ 160"
Why would that be? Intelligence is the cognitive capacity to adapt your thinking to new requirements (solve novel problems). Measuirng stratospheric IQ is simply a matter of creating very difficult problems or requiring people to solve simple problems faster.
"[at that point, you are dealing with things like God-given "talent", and how to measure it, not to mention pathological/debilitating schizophrenia/Aspergers kinds of problems"
What does schizophrenia/aspergers have to do with high IQ? Schizophrenics tend to have low IQ's.
"America is increasingly stratified by IQ, and the resulting class war that the clever are waging upon the clueless means that having Harvard's endorsement of your brainpower is ever more desirable. Thus, applications and SAT scores have skyrocketed over the last half century."
I'm not convinced SAT scores at Harvard have skyrocketed over the last century. Yes it's true that Harvard students are an increasingly elite subgroup of the college population, but that's probably because the college population itself has become increasingly democratized.
"Again, that dean is [along with her father and her sister] at the heart of the cabal which worked very quietly [and very intimately] for several decades to install Barack Hussein Obama & Michelle LaVaughn Robinson at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue."
You give this cabal way too much credit.
"...having Harvard's endorsement of your brainpower is ever more desirable."
Look, you don't need it. Just keep your SAT scores handy in your wallet and be open during job interviews about your IQ. They will find it very refreshing. If it's ONLY 138, it's still impressive and you are likely to get a second interview. If it's 160, swell, who cares if you went to Harvard. If you have good social skills they will probably hire you on the spot.
Back in the fifties my mother walked into a Wall Street company cold, no calling ahead. The director of personnel simply handed her the Wunderlich test; she did so well they instantly hired her as a junior executive, even though in those days a lot of Radcliffe and Bryn Mawr grads ended up in the typing pool.
Really, businesses need to win back the right to give aptitude tests. It would save a lot of smart people a bundle in Ivy League tuition.
Jonathan said:
"Harvard has to walk a fine line. It needs to let in a certain number of "diversity" applicants to keep the hoi polloi in line, but not so many as to devalue the Harvard brand. I wonder what the tipping point is."
Here's a data point: my daughter, with a 2380 single-sitting SAT, a 4.00 unweighted GPA (valedictorian), great SAT II and AP scores, good extracurriculars, great recommendations, and very solid summer programs, didn't get into Harvard.
She also didn't get into a lesser Ivy. She was waitlisted at two mid-ranked liberal arts colleges. She'll be going to our state land grant university, which is ecstatic to have her in its Honors program as a STEM field major.
I believe that the "tipping point" is that academic excellence, without legacy, athlete, or other special status, simply no longer matters in liberal private schools of the Northeast for those not blessed to be "diverse."
"Only those with IQ's over 170 are admitted."
Only about 3 students a year would qualify. An IQ above 170 is like scoring a perfect 1600 on both sections of the old (pre-1995) SAT. It's roughly one in a million level.
Anything Harvard can do that'll disgrace its brand name I'm in favor of. The less respect people have for Harvard and its ilk, the better.
Yunno, Larry "I'm a genius" Summers LOST billions for Harvard prior to his departure. The finance blogs mock his investing acumen.
Jonathan said: "I wonder what the tipping point is."
Well, one thing is for certain:
It had already been reached in 1939 when an Iowa Agricultural College and Model Farm professor and graduate student designed and built the first computer.
I'm of two minds on the IQ thingee. On the one hand I know that the subject of IQ is in no way cut and dry. The thing is murky and its predictive power when decoupled from the academic credentials that often go with it is minimal. Smart people without credentials don't do nearly as well as dumb people with credentials. There are thousands of doctors and tens of thousands of lawyers who demonstrate that daily.
Which brings me to my other feeling on the thing: Excitement.
I'm terrifically tempted to believe people here who speak about an imaginary world where High IQ alone counts for something!
I scored higher than Mr. 99.9% on this ( http://www.eskimo.com/~miyaguch/schmies.html )
and have Mensa level SAT scores. Lacking credentials is that actually worth anything in the economic universe? Until just now I never mentioned anything to do with IQ or SATs to anyone because I've never seen it matter for much other than a vague sense of intellectual superiority.
So there I am. Doubtful that psychometric tests matter for anything but getting accepted to good schools but definitely game to be proven wrong. Should I show up at law firms with a printout of my SAT scores? Should I fork over the $50 for official Mensa membership and the attendant cap?
How about getting into a PhD program or medical school without having taken the required prior courses?
Really, it seems quite unlikely that the Culture of the Credentialed would allow itself to be pushed aside by something that could be proven in a half hour with a paper and pencil.
"Smart people without credentials don't do nearly as well as dumb people with credentials."
I doubt this. Bill Gates had no credentials (college dropout) but because of his super-genius IQ, he became the most successful person of all time.
"High IQ University": a university founded on the principle that those with the highest IQ should be our leaders. . . . Only those with IQ's over 170 are admitted.
I though for a second you were describing Cal Tech. But then again, Cal Tech doesn't really produce our leaders.
my pa has an IQ > 160, he was a plasma physicist. but basically the family had to take care of him, instead of the other way around. i'm not so sure i want that kind of dad. i'd rather have say a good artisan as dad, someone who has a thriving business and takes care of the family's needs. i have a fairly high IQ myself, but consider it less important and certainly do not judge people by their IQ. i am no longer impressed by IQ.
"Bill Gates had no credentials (college dropout) but because of his super-genius IQ, he became the most successful person of all time."
Bill Gates was very well-connected. His mother sat on the national board of directors of United Way, as did the CEO (or president, or both, I forget) of IBM. His mother was the one who introduced them to each other, and the rest is programming history.
Gates also benefitted from the monumental stupidity of IBM in not insisting on owning the rights to DOS. This failure on IBM's part has been described by some as the greatest corporate blunder of the 20th century.
Anon:
"Corporations however, would salivate, because they'd immediately know what they were getting."
Most corporations don't want IQ 170 superbrains. They want people who are smart (ca IQ 125) and loquacious, like the typical Harvard Law grad. Being a good team player, don't-rock-the-boat type is also very important.
"Ivy League presidents aren't much worried that the left half of the Bell Curve will get themselves well enough organized to challenge the hegemony of the IQ overclass. No, what they fear is opposition to their use of IQ sorting mechanisms, such as the politically incorrect but crucial SAT, from those identity politics pressure groups who perform below average in a pure meritocracy, such as women, blacks, and Hispanics. But, they each boast enough high IQ activists, like Nancy Hopkins, to make trouble for prestige universities."--Steve
Steve, this is BS re women. OK, some women may be getting preferential treatment at places like MIT--but the marginal preference they receive pales in comparison with that given to low-IQ blacks and Hispanics.
Please name 1 high-IQ black activist (I can't name one). But there are many high-IQ white females.
The problem at Harvard is dumb NAMs being protected by white liberals.
"Really, businesses need to win back the right to give aptitude tests. It would save a lot of smart people a bundle in Ivy League tuition."
And open up the job market for the lazy bums who fell through the cracks!
j/k, but I'm sure we agree that'd be a good thing.
I'm studying in a well paying field right now, but really it is just underachieving. I should be rich! There is no substitute for wisdom, responsibility, brains. Get your sleep, boys! (and girls)
Why was Mao so easily able to persecute intellectuals during certain periods of this reign?
Or, why did so many buy into his program of persecution? Because of the general public's resentment of the position, power and respect accorded to those intellectuals and their disdain for the ordinary people.
It's funny how history has a way of repeating itself.
OneSTDV said...
It's funny that Harvard and other Ivy Leaguers think they're better on the sole account of their higher intelligence.
Yet how dare someone make mention it?!!?
[Of course, I agree they're way smarter and more capable of economic productivity and shirking social pathologies (other than liberalism). But that surely doesn't mean anyone without an Ivy degree is a failure or morally worthless.]
OneSTDV is having another of his fantasies about the beautiful intellectual class. If only some of them wouldn't indulge in the pathology of liberalism, they would all be sublimely perfect.
The problem is that there will always be variance and those of us who are far to the right on the IQ curve need most of the rest of the folks out there, so let's accord them some respect.
Your High IQ won't do you much good when there is a raging mob after your blood.
"Only those with IQ's over 170 are admitted."
As a Harvard grad I can field this one.
The average IQ of whites, Indians, and Asians at Harvard is somewhat above 3 sigma (145) -- Harvard students tend to be at the 1-in-500 to 1-in-a-1000 level of rarity for intelligence.
In any given year there are about 300 kids with an IQ above 160 graduating from US high schools. The top four Ivy League universities, MIT, Caltech, Chicago, Northwestern, and a few land grant schools with outstanding engineering departments like UIUC and Berkeley divide them up fairly evenly.
@mnuez:
Your argument is obvious or ignorant.
(1) Credentials matter when knowledge and specific skills are required for a job. I don’t want a person with an English PhD -- but with no medical or engineering credentials – performing transplant surgeries or building bridges.
(2) Credentials don’t (and can’t) explain individual differences in life outcomes when everyone has the credential. When everyone has the credential (e.g., MD, JD), psychometric tests such as IQ tests provide better incremental predictive validity for outcomes than all other measures (e.g., personality tests) (e.g., Hunter & Schmidt or Gottfredson).
(3) A credential – in the form of a certification (e.g., Microsoft cert or a college degree) – is something you obtain *after* demonstrating competency in a field. IQ provides valuable information about whether you’re likely to be successful in securing the credential *before* you attempt to get it. SAT scores, for example, not only predict FYGPA (the conventional outcome for the SAT); they also predict graduation rates and are excellent proxies for g (Frey and Detterman).
(4) Ever since Griggs, employers have used college degrees (particularly in non-professional, liberal arts programs) and college prestige as rough proxies for IQ when selecting employees. It would be far more efficient (and would result in fewer false positives) if the law allowed employers to use cognitive ability tests (e.g., Wonderlic) to measure potential employees’ ability directly rather than making them infer ability from indirect measures.
Anonymous said:
>Why do they always recant?<
Another anonymous said:
>Oh, where the f*ck are the scientists on this one? If we got science on our side, and we do, then where are the scientists loudly and vehemently protesting the Lamarckist bullshit that is imposed on us?<
The love of money is the root of all evil.
Only when the system collapses economically - only when Harvard has no more economic standing than a cactus - will people begin to speak up for the truth, because they will have nothing to lose.
But as long as there is the slimmest chance of making coin by staying silent, they will stay silent.
People are dishonest now simply for the opportunity to buy sports cars and summer homes sometime in the future (and a "good" "education" for their kids, of course). "Screw the truth, let's get ours." Cf. the housing bubble.
They want to be bought, wishfully think themselves bought, and will stay bought.
The moral failure of this society is profound.
Should I show up at law firms with a printout of my SAT scores?
-------
I once included my very high gmat scores on a bio and got extremely negative feedback from the powers that be. And this was when I was 1 year out of a state school undergrad program competing against moronic ivy leaguers - yet no one thought it odd that they included their ivy credentials on their bio. In fact, people tout their credentials without rebuke throughout their careers.
The third post here, asks where the scientists are...? Perhaps understandably in foxholes or caves. Perhaps one of the finest brief primers to the topic, worthy of Harvard undergrads, was from the British psychologist, Chris Brand, entitled (like Arthur Jensen's book ) THE "g" FACTOR and
published in late February 1996 by Wiley UK and depublished shortly thereafter. The author offered realistic and humane suggestions of how to interface social policies with the scientfic facts of life, and these positive suggestions are probably as good a point of entry as possible into any effort at public discussion on campus (is there any?) So, perhaps the best campus level primer on this topic hit the Orwellian Memory Hole and understandably is not commonly referenced even in whispered discussions (how many are there?) near campuses like Harvard, Stanford, Yale... However, the author has managed to try to bring the book up from the Memory Hole, and it is accessible online free
(see "IQ & PC ) or mail the author at
brand@crispian.demon.co.uk
It is better to support those scientists who have stood up and taken the brickbats and fought back, than to bemoan the reticence of the lesser among them.
One has the sense that the safest, most prudent, sources of information for students on campus are the online writings of Steve Sailer and and the publications accessible from the homepages of courageous scientists ( who have
withstood fierce attacks ) like
Linda Gottfredson or J. Philippe Rushton.
The remarks from the 2005 article brilliantly capture the culturally schizoid dynamics of what goes on in the minds of most professors on campus. The sense, however, is that what is really threatening is the subliminal awareness that The Great Taboo could be discussed openly in our society and that once it started to be discussed all manner of issues would come out of the woodwork. It is not hard to imagine a hurrican force debate and controvery eclipsing what is supposed to be taboo--namely---Why on Earth were we not disussing this issue openly decades ago? What would emerge from t h a t topic could really make the earth tremble. To come full circle on this topic, one can consider that certain books have been banned that touch directly on the foregoing. Chris Brand's 1996 THE "g" FACTOR is one but more immediately relevant is the work
by Professor Eugene Valberg written under the pen name of Gedhalia Braun and only recently finding outlet (after 20 years !!) online via the American Renaissance books. Valberg found that througout most of Africa he could strike up informative discussions with a wide range of Africans about Black/White IQ differences and whether they were innate. Africans, especailly those not suffering from politically leftist delusions, have the good sense to know that Mr. Reality and Mr. Reason are their closest friends. They have the good sense to know that there is a place for everyone and are devoid of "Prufrock complexes" (as are most of those in skilled occupations, in engineering, in scientific pursuits ). It is scant wonder that Valberg's findings were too hot to be put in print in developed world. That one can stand in a public library in an African town and discuss "the great taboo" without risk to oneself or to the participants puts the Harvard world to deserved shame.
"Jim Bowery said...
Jonathan said: "I wonder what the tipping point is."
Well, one thing is for certain:
It had already been reached in 1939 when an Iowa Agricultural College and Model Farm professor and graduate student designed and built the first computer."
For more on this story:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atanasoff
"The average IQ of whites, Indians, and Asians at Harvard is somewhat above 3 sigma (145) -- Harvard students tend to be at the 1-in-500 to 1-in-a-1000 level of rarity for intelligence."
No Harvard students are at the 1-in-50 level with respect to intelligence. The average IQ there is 130 (U.S. norms):
http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/2003/10.23/01-creativity.html
Their SAT scores indicate an even higher level of IQ, however they were selected based on SAT scores so this is a statistically biased measure of their mean IQ. When assessed by an IQ test selected at random, they score about 130.
I see folks didn't like my idea of a high IQ university.
Where the inspiration for that came from was the "tell off" letter that one trader sent before retiring a few years back, where he thanked the Ivy league's legacy admission policies at various schools that admitted children of almumni so that "there would be people stupid enough to be on the other end of my trades". This guy made a mint, and got out. He almost certainly had a truly high IQ.
I see that one commenter claims the average Harvard white, Indian, or Asian is 145. Thats great, but why all the expense? If there was a "high IQ university" funded by a billionaire, admission need not be all that expensive. Lets say we lower the requirement to an IQ of 145. Any of the "legacy" admissions to the ivy leagues of 120 IQ's would be excluded, and potential employers would know they were getting a lot of raw mental problem-solving candlepower with each new hire.
The Ivy's are inculcating a PC-mindset on our elite through four years of subtle conditioning with social alienation as the stick and social acceptance as the carrot. I'd like to see this power broken myself, so that our really bright young people can speak out against obvious incorrect verbotten subjects (that whole free inquiry thingy).
On another note: Has anyone else, after giving money to Vdare through a debit/credit card, noticed that their bank (Bank of America) notifies them that their card's usage has been unusual and sees it denied (at a Walgreens for me)? I mean, Ive given to seven or eight conservative-leaning websites in the past week, but I do that almost every year. Why do I have the feeling that Bank of America simply doesn't like me sending a couple of hundred dollars to various right wing outlets?
Anonymous Harvard grad wrote:
"'Only those with IQ's over 170 are admitted.'
As a Harvard grad I can field this one.
The average IQ of whites, Indians, and Asians at Harvard is somewhat above 3 sigma (145) -- Harvard students tend to be at the 1-in-500 to 1-in-a-1000 level of rarity for intelligence.
In any given year there are about 300 kids with an IQ above 160 graduating from US high schools. The top four Ivy League universities, MIT, Caltech, Chicago, Northwestern, and a few land grant schools with outstanding engineering departments like UIUC and Berkeley divide them up fairly evenly."
My daughter had one of the top 700 single-sitting SAT scores in the nation. Neither Harvard nor Cal Tech accepted her. Nor did Dartmouth. Nor did two different liberal arts colleges. Read my comment above.
I reiterate: without a "hook," be it minority status, legacy status, college recruited athlete, or whatever, I suspect that academics no longer matter at the schools you mention. Perhaps athletes and minorities, and even legacies and children of professors, compete on academics to maintain the standards. My point is that at least one, and I suspect many, of the top students by intellect was refused admission to the top-tier schools.
"Should I show up at law firms with a printout of my SAT scores?"
No, you should start your own firm.
"An evil related idea for a billionaire:
"High IQ University": a university founded on the principle that those with the highest IQ should be our leaders."
"Once THEY SEEN the overwhelmingly white/asian male student body...
I take it you won't be attending your own university.
I knew the Dean slightly when she was in law school and she struck me as a very nice and very well-brought-up young lady. I think a lot of her response in this case was shock and incomprehension that someone would say something that's obviously not what one says or even admits thinking. She brings a woman's touch to the position she holds.
Truth said...
"I take it you won't be attending your own university."
Truth,
I cheerfully admit that I wouldn't have an IQ near that high. The thing is (and I bet this is a difference between me and you) is that I recognize that these special people can be prime movers to make us all wealthier and better off through their extrodinarily mental abilities. I hate to see them endure several years of PC-brainwash in which they are subtlely rewarded for adopting a disdain for the much of the rest of our populace (hatred of the average person). Me wishing there was a non-indoctrinary university for these greater talents that simply gave them a education and to diminish the cultural leftism of the Ivy league is simply want for a better result from academia than we are currently getting.
Harvard and the Ivies also overcharge Truth. Their tuition is highway robbery. Even a lefty should be able to agree with that. They need some competition.
"No Harvard students are at the 1-in-50 level with respect to intelligence. The average IQ there is 130 (U.S. norms):
http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/2003/10.23/01-creativity.html"
The sample of <200 students in this study are likely to be in the arts or General Studies -- a notably dim group on campus. I can believe the art, music and literature majors on campus had an IQ of 130. They are also the ones most willing to sell their semen and so watch out Jodie Foster.
The correlation between pre 1996 SATs and IQ is pretty strong. My GRE, SAT, and 6th grade IQ scores were all within 1/3 sigma.
I guess I should have qualified my statement by saying I was an 80's Harvard grad. I have no idea what kids on campus are like today.
"No Harvard students are at the 1-in-50 level with respect to intelligence. The average IQ there is 130 (U.S. norms):
http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/2003/10.23/01-creativity.html"
The sample of <200 students in this study are likely to be in the arts or General Studies -- a notably dim group on campus. I can believe the art, music and literature majors on campus had an IQ of 130.
------------
I don't know what Harvard students' IQ is, or that IQ measures are particularly useful outside of 2 SD's. Mine was measured at 144 in the 3rd grade, and I've interacted with many alums of harvard and other schools, and found the vast majority to be fairly mediocre in terms of intellect - which shocked me, because I expected they would be brilliant, having completed my undergrad at a state university.
"I hate to see them endure several years of PC-brainwash in which they are subtlely rewarded for adopting a disdain for the much of the rest of our populace (hatred of the average person)."
If they're that smart, why are they vulnerable to brainwashing?
"If they're that smart, why are they vulnerable to brainwashing?"
Because they are some of the biggest conformists on the face of the earth. The one's that know better go along to get along. The dupes likely have an above-average respect for whatever orthodoxy is taught to them by those in authority. If a brilliant Harvard professor said it, it must be. They have little life experience, don't understand the game, and think in terms of the world being hunky-dory a meritocracy. Critical thinking has given way to critical theory.
There is also a group that likely gets sucked into the indoctrination via course study and testing. The correct answer is the one in line with prevailing PC dogma.
Great:
Well if the smartest people in the world are stupid enough to be easily indoctrinated, what good are they to us?
"If they're that smart, why are they vulnerable to brainwashing?"
Actually, the political views of Harvard graduates are similar to Hispanics. According to a few 25th reunion polls I've seen, Democrats outnumber Republicans two to one.
"If they're that smart, why are they vulnerable to brainwashing?"
Because the matters in which they are brainwashed -- matters involving liberty and rights, ultimately -- are moral in nature, not intellectual. Being "smart" makes them no less susceptible to progressivism than it made their counterparts susceptible to Puritanism two centuries ago.
"Because the matters in which they are brainwashed -- matters involving liberty and rights, ultimately -- are moral in nature, not intellectual."
So let me get this straight; they have 170 IQs, you do not, but you know what's better for them better than they do?
Also, if moral character has no basis in intellect, and your moral character is better than theirs, and you have had mostly the same public education, maybe guys with the same IQ as you should run the world?
Black Sea writes: "Gates also benefitted from the monumental stupidity of IBM in not insisting on owning the rights to DOS. This failure on IBM's part has been described by some as the greatest corporate blunder of the 20th century."
Which is as nothing compared to the governmental failure to change the tax base to net in-place liquidation value of assets.
Being "smart" makes them no less susceptible to progressivism than it made their counterparts susceptible to Puritanism two centuries ago.
I think you meant to say "Unitarianism" [or "Universalism", or one of their various bastard children].
"Here's a data point: my daughter, with a 2380 single-sitting SAT, a 4.00 unweighted GPA (valedictorian), great SAT II and AP scores, good extracurriculars, great recommendations, and very solid summer programs, didn't get into Harvard."
I am sorry, but Harvard et al are for elites and urban-kids-to-make-up-the-numbers ONLY.
You, being a typical Joe Schmoe, should know your place and the system just showed you what's what.
Have a nice day, enjoy living in the land of the free, brave etc etc.
@ American Goy:
Thanks! I don't challenge what you're saying. I'm merely offering a tangible data point to counter the perceptions of those who believe that a handful of elite schools discover and share the top few students by IQ in the US. That was, perhaps, true a generation back. Now, despite the hype regarding recruiting qualified, interested girls for STEM fields, it's clearly NOT true. It's not just that Harvard didn't want her: it's that liberal private schools well down the pecking order didn't want her, either. Academic potential--IQ, if you will--may be a qualifier within acceptable populations, but for a mere upper-middle class girl who looks more or less like Taylor Swift, IQ doesn't matter if you want to go to an elite private school.
It's not just that Harvard didn't want her: it's that liberal private schools well down the pecking order didn't want her, either. Academic potential--IQ, if you will--may be a qualifier within acceptable populations, but for a mere upper-middle class girl who looks more or less like Taylor Swift...
What's her cell-phone number?
Thx.
@ Legions of iSteve Lurkers:
"What's her cell-phone number?"
1 - 555 - NOT4YOU
I will, however, comment that the Harvard interview went remarkably well.
Most people with an IQ over about 140-150 become severely dysfunctional in a social sense - most become autistic, withdrawn, alienated, isolated, etc.
A good rule of thumb for IQ is having one which is higher than average whilst also retaining crucial social skills. Again, the majority of people with high IQs are socially retarded, which inhibits their progress.
>Most people with an IQ over about 140-150 become severely dysfunctional in a social sense - most become autistic, withdrawn, alienated, isolated, etc.<
Probably not their fault, though.
Imagine the effect on your personality if you had to live in Section 8 housing in Detroit.
"Here's a data point: my daughter, with a 2380 single-sitting SAT, a 4.00 unweighted GPA (valedictorian), great SAT II and AP scores, good extracurriculars, great recommendations, and very solid summer programs, didn't get into Harvard."
Hmmm... Honestly, this strikes me as strange. Generally, when you hear about valedictorians not making it highly ranked schools, it is because their SAT scores are not similarly high. But that combination of SAT and GPA is certainly enough to qualify you as an academic standout.
I can imagine that she didn't get into Harvard, but I find it very hard to believe that she didn't get into at least one top 3 ivy with those scores, let alone lesser ivies or mid-ranked LAC's.
Were her essays explicit about believing in biorealism or something? While a lot of Harvard's class is made up of minorities, athletes, legacies etc. a fair portion is also academic standouts.
Post a Comment